What can work in climatic campaigns: Review of information-based and framing approaches

Main Article Content

Jan Urban
Tomáš Chabada
Jan Skalík

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide the review of recently tested interventions that seek to change beliefs, attitudes and behaviors related to global climate change (GCC). The two major approaches, information-based interventions and framing interventions, are presented and discussed. Information-based interventions differ in the underlying models of attitude change, and also in the types of information they use to drive the attitude and behavior change. Interventions focusing on the communication of scientific consensus about the GCC and interventions providing information about the mechanism of GCC are capable to positively influence attitudes to GCC without having polarization effect. Framing interventions emphasize certain dimensions of an issue so that they interact with pre-existing schemata, values, and mental models, which people hold. Gain frames describing the gains that will occur from GCC mitigation are capable to increase concern about GCC as well as positive attitudes towards GCC mitigation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
Urban, J., Chabada, T., & Skalík, J. (2018). What can work in climatic campaigns: Review of information-based and framing approaches. Envigogika, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.563
Section
Reviewed Papers

References

Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.). (2005). The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107–12109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
Bedford, D. (2016). Does Climate Literacy Matter? A Case Study of U.S. Students’ Level of Concern about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Journal of Geography, 115(5), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2015.1105851
Bilandzic, H., Kalch, A., & Soentgen, J. (2017). Effects of Goal Framing and Emotions on Perceived Threat and Willingness to Sacrifice for Climate Change. Science Communication, 39(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017718553
Boden, T., Andres, R., & Marland, G. (2017). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions (1751 - 2014) (V. 2017). Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States). https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017
Bolsen, T., Leeper, T. J., & Shapiro, M. A. (2014). Doing What Others Do Norms, Science, and Collective Action on Global Warming. American Politics Research, 42(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13484173
Bolton, L. E., Cohen, J. B., & Bloom, P. N. (2006). Does Marketing Products as Remedies Create ‘Get Out of Jail Free Cards’? Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/504137
Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031–1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760
Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2016). ‘Proximising’ climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004
Carrico, A. R., Truelove, H. B., Vandenbergh, M. P., & Dana, D. (2015). Does learning about climate change adaptation change support for mitigation? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.009
ComRes. (2014). ECIU climate change poll August 2014. Retrieved from http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/eciu-climate-change-poll/
Cook, J. (2013). The consensus gap. Skeptical Science. Retrieved from http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=78
Cook, John, Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., … Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Cook, John, Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., … Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2010). The Role of Causality in Information Acceptance in Narratives: An Example From Science Communication. Communication Research, 37(6), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362683
Dilley, J. W., Woods, W. J., & McFarland, W. (1997). Are Advances in Treatment Changing Views about High-Risk Sex? New England Journal of Medicine, 337(7), 501–502. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199708143370715
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002
Evans, L., Milfont, T. L., & Lawrence, J. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Global Environmental Change, 25, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs. Psychological Science, 22(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2016). Using Political Efficacy Messages to Increase Climate Activism The Mediating Role of Emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behaviour: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Greenhill, B., Dolšak, N., & Prakash, A. (2018). Exploring the Adaptation-mitigation Relationship: Does Information on the Costs of Adapting to Climate Change Influence Support for Mitigation? Environmental Communication, 12(7), 911–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508046
Hart, P. S. (2013). The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 785–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513482268
Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2014). Threat Without Efficacy? Climate Change on U.S. Network News. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520239
Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang Effects in Science Communication How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). A cautionary note about messages of hope: Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation motivation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.003
Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., McStay, R., Reser, J. P., & Bradley, G. L. (2015). Are People High in Skepticism About Anthropogenic Climate Change Necessarily Resistant to Influence? Some Cause for Optimism. Environment and Behaviour, 0013916515574085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515574085
Jaskulsky, L., & Besel, R. (2013). Words That (Don’t) Matter: An Exploratory Study of Four Climate Change Names in Environmental Discourse. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.795836
Kahan, D. (2017). The “Gateway Belief” illusion: reanalyzing the results of a scientific-consensus messaging study. Journal of Science Communication, 16(05). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050203
Kahan, D. M. ., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015). The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1205.
Kerr, J. R., & Wilson, M. S. (2018). Perceptions of scientific consensus do not predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change: A test of the gateway belief model using cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.012
Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., & Dimock, M. (2009). Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Pew Research Center for People & the Press. Retrieved from https://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/_docs/Pew-Science_Survey_2009.pdf
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Lamprey, L. N., Fricke, K., & Raney, M. (2016). Reducing American’s doubts about global warming using brief instructional interventions. MACSME Program, UCB.
Landrum, A. R., Hallman, W. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2018). Examining the Impact of Expert Voices: Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Genetically-modified Organisms. Environmental Communication, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Climate Change in the American Mind: American’s Global Warmign Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2014. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-2014.pdf
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
Lineman, M., Do, Y., Kim, J. Y., & Joo, G.-J. (2015). Talking about Climate Change and Global Warming. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138996
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0120985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
Nasukawa, T., & Yi, J. (2003). Sentiment analysis: Capturing favorability using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge capture (pp. 70–77). ACM.
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The Partisan Brain How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968–972.
Peltzman, S. (1975). The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), 677–725.
Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187
Ranney, M. A., & Lamprey, L. N. (Eds.). (2013). How global warming works. [Website]. Retrieved from http://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/
Ranney, M. A., Clark, D., & Cohen, S. (2012). Changing global warming beliefs with scientific information: Knowledge, attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny theory). In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2228–2233). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Ranney, M. A., Munnich, E. L., & Lamprey, L. N. (2016). Chapter Four - Increased Wisdom From the Ashes of Ignorance and Surprise: Numerically-Driven Inferencing, Global Warming, and Other Exemplar Realms. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 129–182). Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742116000189
Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., & Zhao, X. (2014). The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Climatic Change, 125(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5
Rubin, D. (1974). Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Non-randomized Studies. Journal of Education Psychology, 66(5), 688–701.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behaviour, 45(1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196
Segerberg, A. (2017). Online and Social Media Campaigns For Climate Change Engagement (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.398
Shwom, R., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2008). The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy preferences. Climatic Change, 90(4), 343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9428-7
Schoenefeld, J. J., & McCauley, M. R. (2016). Local is not always better: the impact of climate information on values, behaviour and policy support. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(4), 724–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0288-y
Schuldt, J. P., & Roh, S. (2014). Media Frames and Cognitive Accessibility: What Do ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Climate Change’ Evoke in Partisan Minds? Environmental Communication, 8(4), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.909510
Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). ‘Global warming’ or ‘climate change’? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 115–124.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Staddon, S. C., Cycil, C., Goulden, M., Leygue, C., & Spence, A. (2016). Intervening to change behaviour and save energy in the workplace: A systematic review of available evidence. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 30–51.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
van der Linden, S. (2016). A Conceptual Critique of the Cultural Cognition Thesis. Science Communication, 38(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015614970
van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2014). How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change, 126(1–2), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1190-4
Vandenbergh, M. P., Barkenbus, J., & Gilligan, J. (2007). Individual carbon emissions: The low-hanging fruit. UCLA L. Rev., 55, 1701.
Villar, A., & Krosnick, J. A. (2011). Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter? Climatic Change, 105(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9882-x
Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506073088
World Economic Forum. (2017). The Global Risks Report 2017. Retrieved from http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10090180
Zhang, B., van der Linden, S., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., Howe, P. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2018). Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0